Primary Navigation

Schema + soapenc:root

I noticed that some of the MS implementations were using root= 1 on the serialization roots now. Regarding use of soapenc:root and the 2001 schema

Message 1 of 3
, Dec 10, 2001

0 Attachment

I noticed that some of the MS implementations were using root='1' on the
serialization roots now. Regarding use of soapenc:root and the 2001 schemahttp://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/ , it appears the default is '0',
i.e., non-serialization root. Therefore, according to schema, *if* root is
not present, then you are declaring a non-serialization root!

With the exception of MS, root appears to be used in reverse context in the
rest of the implementations, AFAIK.

Comments!

Thx,

-Matt

Simon Fell

That certainly doesn t jive with the prose description for root, in particular, the last sentence of section 5.6 is The attribute does not have a default

Message 2 of 3
, Dec 10, 2001

0 Attachment

That certainly doesn't jive with the prose description for root, in
particular, the last sentence of section 5.6 is "The attribute does
not have a default value."

I seem to recall last time root was discussed in detail that putting
root='1' on the RPC root [aka methodName element] wasn't correct, but
i'd have to check the archives to be sure.

Cheers
Simon
www.pocketsoap.com

On Mon, 10 Dec 2001 12:36:13 -0600, in soap you wrote:

>I noticed that some of the MS implementations were using root='1' on the
>serialization roots now. Regarding use of soapenc:root and the 2001 schema
>http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/ , it appears the default is '0',
>i.e., non-serialization root. Therefore, according to schema, *if* root is
>not present, then you are declaring a non-serialization root!
>
>With the exception of MS, root appears to be used in reverse context in the
>rest of the implementations, AFAIK.
>
>Comments!
>
>Thx,
>
>-Matt
>
>
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
>
>To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

Bob Cunnings

Hi Matt, Hmmm, per Section 5.6 [1] of the SOAP spec, this would indicate that they are serialization roots , as opposed to true roots of the object graph .

Message 3 of 3
, Dec 10, 2001

0 Attachment

Hi Matt,

Hmmm, per Section 5.6 [1] of the SOAP spec, this would indicate
that they are 'serialization roots', as opposed to 'true roots of the
object graph'. Now considering a single header entry in isolation,
defined as part of some SOAP extension, does an instance of
such represent a single, self contained object graph? If so, then the
header entry element is the 'true root', and no 'soap-enc:root'
attribute is necessary? Would not the same be true for the struct
representing an RPC in the body of a SOAP message?

My point is that if these are instances of 'true roots', then the
omission of the 'soap-enc:root' element doesn't mean that one is
declaring a non-serialization root, per section 5.6 (?). The primary
purpose of 'soap-enc:root' seems to be a negative one, to indicate
non-roots explicitly.

It's interesting that the schema sets "0" as the default, as most
interpretations of Section 5.6 take "1" to be the logical default
value, e.g. [3].

This has always been a little confusing, as well as heavily
discussed. The approach offered in a writeup [2] of issue #78
(SOAP 1.2) seems to drop the notion of 'true root', and focus on
serialization. Maybe the MS people are getting ready for SOAP 1.2
?

> I noticed that some of the MS implementations were using root='1' on the
> serialization roots now. Regarding use of soapenc:root and the 2001 schema
> http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/soap/encoding/ , it appears the default is '0',
> i.e., non-serialization root. Therefore, according to schema, *if* root is
> not present, then you are declaring a non-serialization root!
>
> With the exception of MS, root appears to be used in reverse context in the
> rest of the implementations, AFAIK.
>
> Comments!
>
> Thx,
>
> -Matt
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
> This group is a forum for builders of SOAP implementations to discuss implementation and interoperability issues. Please stay on-topic.
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> soapbuilders-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>

Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.